Re: [111attendees] test

Chukwuka Odele <chukwukaodele@gmail.com> Sat, 24 July 2021 16:11 UTC

Return-Path: <chukwukaodele@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BFE73A40DE for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:11:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.096
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.096 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2znAegVI8YCD for <111attendees@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:11:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb1-xb35.google.com (mail-yb1-xb35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::b35]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA2DA3A40DB for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb1-xb35.google.com with SMTP id m193so7270860ybf.9 for <111attendees@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:11:09 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=jNp7k5tY9qnN4huzcN/XNnKDew3AbbxJ+cTUjkZnaac=; b=mTninraG6HDIE5kjFzPmE+PTzeEafm4BBSzz7t/5NFEPLWmcwq5L9iNpUKwhq65L/d XRvmdXJf7F8ictRXZx2l6TgDYhCbzUzTj2id+kGxlCukqHTWjJdTCNMJ6fBSNphhG9Mg FnDfJelrrLx1VsctEEXgtbEGwVgXgAsuYPsNJWnnRoeImVeSAVWKKeLNF1l24soGqN0o L/RHwBpto8pZkqrHmdQpb7RTPLWZ8ybUs6OXvtDqAHStPMzGyIsqvc0WHWJb3Obl5uH7 4bNvPSbHQfe/o+YOhbFHirQ7t03oYd0rWCo2o9zGs/dKs/D3d7o1f+dm2l9vLSZdz0MC Yq1w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=jNp7k5tY9qnN4huzcN/XNnKDew3AbbxJ+cTUjkZnaac=; b=NZA2oDEzkiNe0grh3mn4vXhPxfvVsB0nsEw0ikTL+LmYR8ee46WXv6CheS1t/gCXh1 zFLng8oZD9O9VWk/OAhwoBkoQ96k/I8BomuWMq8zcIUpwKy878B9v2HlIf06m6heqC3H Fy4ytnOo2zTm/PnhX5BaaTklBgyFGzJUa55GbbnhkuIHTQpNoArDz+q7kkCo3O9jIRp1 aHYwxfimt681SSJbgZOZXsJeHFJc+5oUA+Dol4DFtDInRxtugAH/0T+zERC1RvN4BKzu PcFEi3NhizcqH+pMQe+tMNt1Rwdak/ZUJBEj/5Y8B6XaIV9gn/g/jmpmJx6TwLWpgVQ4 IDEg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532bpJXeLF0IH+PK5kLo/fAyPqFFqwU9qZ0XE+jJctHOl5h1XoSS XdegVtHoWamZvnsTuhMGRY0Zj2vnsA4v6bD3CXk=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzE7Ip+sc4e5GC01WDQHAKHtCHJDidownPlNAX3E0O1/8LQdPrr0ZYPUUz1P80jk4xabTIj1xogKa3mce+9FAY=
X-Received: by 2002:a25:8b86:: with SMTP id j6mr12685145ybl.470.1627143067824; Sat, 24 Jul 2021 09:11:07 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <c211bfe6-0ffb-b4d8-a3b8-840ab9ee0368@gmail.com> <af8652ed-179a-78d5-eb47-02302ba5e5c2@labs.htt-consult.com> <F7AA1B7F-23E8-48FB-B89B-AB2DAF1F1F8A@gmail.com> <CAAm_rSJcKNJchYt2_CEwBFQapQ3bDfbPXrJQkHQnsKW2i193Dw@mail.gmail.com> <ecad2565-6447-2065-53c6-f46d55666888@nthpermutation.com> <m2wnphq4ko.wl-randy@psg.com> <758515384.164289.1627031655741@appsuite-gw1.open-xchange.com> <0043DCA8-C794-4146-AC2A-F1600ACA2D98@tzi.org> <20210723132655.GI57276@faui48e.informatik.uni-erlangen.de> <EC19AD3B-6392-4BC5-8A54-A28C563B7ABA@eggert.org> <08ED222C861609ACCF4FBE9F@PSB> <02BE2DAD-6713-4545-AD10-D07C0868219D@stewartbryant.com>
In-Reply-To: <02BE2DAD-6713-4545-AD10-D07C0868219D@stewartbryant.com>
From: Chukwuka Odele <chukwukaodele@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 17:10:45 +0100
Message-ID: <CAGburNS_ZLciQ1cH7c=fH6wOgoAhr5v5XTNGNwPWUS1zbgz-Ew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stewart Bryant <sb@stewartbryant.com>
Cc: "111attendees@ietf.org" <111attendees@ietf.org>, Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, Michael StJohns <msj@nthpermutation.com>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de>, Vittorio Bertola <vittorio.bertola=40open-xchange.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000008e73fb05c7e0c4ed"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/111attendees/VoNuS5yLZWNgFaoMzG6jkMVxNiA>
Subject: Re: [111attendees] test
X-BeenThere: 111attendees@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mailing list for IETF 111 attendees <111attendees.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/111attendees/>
List-Post: <mailto:111attendees@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees>, <mailto:111attendees-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2021 16:11:15 -0000

Hello


Has the meeting started  yet?


How do I ( a first time attendee) attend?



Thanks
Chukwuka

On Sat, 24 Jul 2021 at 1:15 PM, Stewart Bryant <sb@stewartbryant.com> wrote:

> +1
>
> Stewart
>
> On 23 Jul 2021, at 18:30, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> --On Friday, July 23, 2021 16:37 +0300 Lars Eggert
> <lars@eggert.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On 2021-7-23, at 16:26, Toerless Eckert <tte@cs.fau.de> wrote:
>
> I for once think that it will only work well if the in-person
> meeting part would require attendees even when being together
> in a room to use their notebooks for discussions instead
> of having a physical line at a single microphone, so that
> there is more fairness between local and remote, but that
> was never really discussed on manycouches or
> picked up their documents.
>
>
> that is because SHMOO is not chartered to work on guidelines
> for hybrid meetings - it is chartered to work on guidelines
> for fully online meetings. (I think I recall seeing that being
> pointed out on the manycouches list.)
>
> If community members would like to make proposals for hybrid
> meetings, that can of course be done via individual I-Ds. But
> SHMOO cannot begin work in this space without a rechartering.
>
>
> But, Lars, moving up several thousand meters...
>
> Independent of the more specific suggestions from several of the
> people you have copied and others, I think one of two things is
> true as a matter of logic.  Either (1) we are convinced that,
> realistically, fully in-person meetings are so far in the future
> that we should concentrate our energy on figuring out how to
> make all online meetings work as well as possible or (2) unless
> there is some likely flag day in the near further such that we
> can realistically plan on almost everyone coming back to
> "normal", in-person meetings all at once, we should be putting
> effort into figuring out how to do hybrid meetings well,
> starting with figuring out what "hybrid" means for us.
>
> If the first case applies, spending time in SHMOO and/or in
> consultations by the LLC fine-tuning criteria for going back to
> in-person meetings or whether the "next" meeting will be in
> person, is a waste of time and resource.
>
> Either way, it seems to me that, as IETF Chair and General Area
> AD, it seems to me, if the SHMOO charter and work are no longer
> a good match for the needs of the IETF, you have both the
> authority and responsibility to make that determination and to
> either shut things down or initiate a conversation about
> adjusting the charter so that things get onto a more useful
> track.  Or you could propose that people start working on a
> charter for a SHMHybrid WG that would compete with SHMOO for
> interested people, time, and resources (it is probably clear
> that I don't think much of that idea, but it is logically
> possible).
>
> It seems to me however that, unless you have a plan about how
> individual I-Ds --ones that the experience of the last 18 months
> suggests would be very controversial-- would reach consensus
> without a WG structure and be processed, is sort of missing the
> point.
>
> thanks for listening,
>   john
>   (for identification in this context: still, I believe, the
> only AD to have decided that a WG was going sufficiently off the
> rails to have shut it down in the middle of the meeting -- no
> IESG member is being paid big bucks by the IETF to be popular,
> only to Do the Right Thing.)
>
>
>
> Thanks,
> Lars
>
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
>
> --
> 111attendees mailing list
> 111attendees@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/111attendees
>
-- 
Sent from my iPhone